Would there have been a Civil war, if there were no Slavery ?

Question

your opinions please...

Answer 1

i think slavery was just the straw that broke the camels back....check this out

http://www.nps.gov/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

Answer 2

The basic cause for the Civil War was the right of a state to secede from the United States of America. The Southern states felt that since they had joined the Union voluntarily, they should have the right to leave the Union (secede) if they desired. Congress disagreed with this. Thirteen Southern states renounced the Union and formed the Confederate States of America, fired on Fort Sumter (A Union fort) and started the war. President Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation shortly before his second election attempt during the war. In short, he declared that the slaves were now free. This strategy helped him get re-elected and is where the idea that the Civil War was over slavery began. Originally, it was not about slavery, but in the end, it was. In my opinion, the Civil War would have occurred anyway because of the major economic and trade differences between the North and South. The slavery issue, though noble, was a galvanizing effort to give a positive spin on Northern opinions which were lagging badly. It gave the North the will to fight and win. They overwhelmed the South with manpower, industrial capability and doggedness. Many historians believe that the cause of slavery being introduced as the reason for the war, the North might well have lost. It gave them a renewed reason to fight and eventually win.

Answer 3

I don't think so. While I agree that the central issue of the Civil War was economic in nature, the primary rationale behind secession was that the South (primarily the Cotton States) had an economy the rested on the pillar of slavery.

South Carolina attempted nullification of tariffs in 1832, with the possible threat of at least rebellion. This was because of the state's heavy dependence on foreign trade. They were dependent because of a slave-based economy of cash-crops. Without slavery, the agricultural base of the state would have been more diverse and thus less dependent on trade.

Even if the agricultural situation remained and foreign trade was still the major rationale, that wasn't why the South seceded. They attempted to leave the Union because of the election of a Republican President, and the Republican Party more or less existed because of the slavery issue. There simply would not have been any impetus to seek independence.

I will agree that there might have been some cultural strife, but it would have manifested itself in politics, and a South without slaves would have had a natural ally in the West when dealing with the industrialised Northeast.

Answer 4

If there were no slavery, there would have been no Civil War. All the crises leading up to the CW were all over slavery (Kansas-Nebraska, Missouri Compromise, of course Fugitive Slave Law). There were differences between the North and SOuth, but without slavery, there wouldn't have been a war. We weren't going to go to war over tariffs or something mundane like that.

Love, Jack.

Answer 5

I think there would have been a civil war, because the civil war was basically over states rights to govern themselves without the federal government stepping in and doing it for them. Slavery was just the final straw.

Answer 6

The civil war still would have occured. It was mainly not because of slavery, but because of the sardine canning industry. While it cost approx. 30 cents for a can of sardines in the north, the south produced the same can of sardines for 5 cents because of the cheap slave labor. The north could not compete with the souths' booming sardine industry and threatened the survival of the norths' sardine industry. That is what the civil war was mostly about, but you don't hear that because it is more politically correct to insisit that it was about liberating the slaves and not because of sardine profits.

Answer 7

The North and South were separated by economic systems. The North benefited by high tariffs protecting their manufacturing. The South, with an agrarian plantation economy, would have benefited from low tariffs allowing them to purchase cheaper European manufactured goods.

Economic tariff issues would have been unlikely on their own to spur cession (but definitely animosity), but the potential and expected slavery ban would have (and did) cripple the southern economy, just as a southern cession would have crippled the northern economy by depriving it of an important market for their goods.

A Southern economy not based on slavery would have greatly reduced animosity between the two sides. A choice by the North not to ban slavery would not have prevented hostilities, but merely delayed them.

Answer 8

Yes. Even now the North and the South are so different, almost like 2 separate countries. The South mainly voted for George W. Bush while much of the country hates him. Slavery is just the textbook reason that's always given to make the South look like bad guys. (I'm not saying slavery is right.)It's really no wonder why they fought.

Answer 9

Probably not. But you have to remember that the North had its own agenda (other than 'moral' issues) in wanting to abolish slavery. Slavery allowed the South to have a booming economy. The North didn't need human labor like this because of its ports and industry. The South, on the other hand, depended on farming, which required human labor. And of course, the cheaper the labor, the more profit.

Answer 10

The civil war was not about slavery. It was about many issues the main one being economics and trade

Answer 11

Yes the war would still have been. The issues were that the north and south were very different like separate countries, and the south wanted to be separate. They had different economies, therefore different laws were beneficial to the different areas. The north had industrialized but the south was still relying on man power, which was the demise of the south. The south had better generals, but the north had the resources due the money provided to them from industrialization.